At Global Nomadic there are great opportunities to get involved in organic agricultural projects.
Organic farming is a fulfilling but challenging pursuit. In this article we have outlined some of the things you need to know to if you want to be successful in organic farming, based on our experience growing tea organically in China.
If it is these that interest you, read on!
An organic farm doesn’t use synthetic fertilisers or pesticides. This aim, of course, raises some challenges. The issue could be reduced yield when plants succumb to disease. Or maybe the problem is economic in nature – how do you market a salad leaf which a caterpillar has already chewed through? Either way, organic farmers have to come up with ingenious workarounds to stay competitive and face off against rivals who do use industrial techniques. Using chemicals is a quick fix and without this crutch to lean on, organic agriculturists have to take a proactive approach and treat potential problems before they become real issues.
Below, we’ll explore how our organic tea garden approaches the challenges of organic farming.
An organic tea plantation focusing on gourmet tea doesn’t come up against all the issues another crop might – we don’t need to till the soil or rotate crops for one thing, but still, many of the difficulties inherent in organic agriculture can be examined in light of our experiences producing organic tea.
The Difficulties
Economic and societal problems can impede the progress of a small-scale, organic farm and these difficulties are not few. Even organic certification is expensive enough so as to put it out of the reach of many small producers. This would make a fascinating article on its own, but for this post we’ll focus on practical matters – the farming techniques – as they are approached on the ground.
Fertility
Farming is elemental. It depends on sunlight, water, and soil. We control the water and sunlight by selecting the best location. For tea, high in the mountains is best: on the right mountain slope the sun only hits the plants for the hours we need; the rarified air allows the flavour of the plant to develop to its full potential; and the ground is well drained – vital for tea as its roots tend to rot in overly wet conditions.
The ability of soil to drain may be controlled by the location, but the ground where we grow our plants must also be rich in vital nutrients for our tea to thrive. To increase the presence of these essential nutrients in the ground industrial farmers use synthetic fertilisers, but of course organic farms can’t do this. Instead, we control erosion, add natural compost, grow cover crops, and introduce symbiotic associations to enrich the land. All these methods encourage soil fauna and flora and improve soil formation and structure.
The soil is naturally nutrient rich, and we allow natural flora and fauna to populate freely.
For us, erosion isn’t a problem. Our tea garden is in a basin at the top of a mountain. Yet still, we use the same techniques a farm with an erosion problem might – namely, planting cover grasses, trees and vegetables to bind the soil. The length of time that the soil is exposed to erosive forces is decreased, soil biodiversity is increased, and nutrient losses are reduced, helping to maintain and enhance soil productivity.
To fertilise our farm, we use a mixture of pig manure and flaxseed – both locally sourced, from nearby organic farms. Many farmers plant cover crops, such as nitrate-fixing legumes, but we haven’t opted for this approach. Because we have low levels of soil erosion and the land wasn’t farmed before we started tending it, we have managed to protect and encourage a healthy soil microbiome (the bacterial ecosystem). Once this balance is met – even if the land was parched before the organic enterprise – soil fertility quickly recovers. Quickly, at least, in farming terms – usually it takes about 3 years!
From healthy soils come healthy plants and healthy plants are better at resisting predators and reduce the need for pest control.
Pest Control
Still, bugs like nibbling healthy plants – and who can blame them. Although our tea trees may turn out healthier in the long run, if we want a finished product that is palatable (to humans, not just insects) we have to protect them as best we can.
In large-scale farming operations herbicides, fungicides and insecticides are used. Yet there are simpler, less destructive techniques we can use to achieve the same end. Some organic farmers cover their crops with fabric that allows entry of light and water while screening out insects. However there are other methods.
First off, I should begin with a caveat: we have been very lucky. Before our tea gardens, the land was wild – a balanced ecosystem, and our farmers didn’t destroy this equilibrium when they planted tea. They left an old-growth forest untouched and between the terraces they have planted fruit trees: apple, pear and walnut. There is also a pond for ducks and geese.
A praying mantis takes a rest amongst our Tie Guanyin varietal.
All this biodiversity gives more opportunity for insect-killing parasites to flourish and because we don’t use pesticides, predatory birds, lizards, and the many insects and arachnids help us out too: spiders spin webs among the grasses and ladybirds eat aphids.
Not all plants are created equal. Critters can be as picky as people when it comes to choosing dinner. As such, we allow flowering wildgrasses to grow between the rows of tea plants – a decoy to keep the little gluttons away from the tea.
As luck would have it, all the farms in our area are organic and as such we have to deal with fewer refugee insects fleeing toxic fallout in neighbouring plantations. Other start-up organic farms would have to be more calculated and work much harder to establish a balanced ecosystem and avoid devastating infestation.
A high mountain, isolated location is ideal for growing tea.
As an aside, for tea farmers, not all insect bites are undesirable – there is a type of tea (Oriental Beauty Tea) where producers go out of their way to attract locusts. After being bitten the leaves produce a chemical which makes the finished tea taste honey sweet. So while we try to minimise exposure to pests, it’s not the end of the world if some leaves get bitten!
To Sum Up
Speaking about the organic process in such a simplified way makes it sound easy, but it is not. A huge amount of care, attention and labour goes into creating and maintaining a balanced ecosystem that not only feeds healthy plants, but also protects them from disease and infestation.
It is a difficult thing for an organic farmer is to watch a weak plant – into which you have sunk countless hours – succumbing to disease and there being nothing you can do do about it. Because weak plants aren’t propped up, only the strongest trees survive. We have a few trees on the farm which are on their way out. Anyone who has gone on holiday and allowed a window plant to dry and shrivel knows how this can feel.
Some trees get sick, but we don’t save them with chemicals – we allow the weaker trees to die, allowing space for strong, healthy trees.
However, the results are worth the hardships. Leaving aside the myriad knock-on benefits a organic farm has for the environment at large. There is something immensely satisfying about understanding the complexity of system and working with that system, not against it to achieve your aim. Moreover, our tea simply tastes better for it. This is down to a number of factors, of course, granted processing and the breed of the plant play a huge role, but, all other variables being equal, truly organic produce has an extra intangible something which makes it all the more delicious. The tea we produce is more vibrant, fragrant and robust than anything we have encountered from non-organic farms.
The strongest trees survive and thrive, naturally dominating over weaker plants.
If you have any questions about our methods here, or you would like to know more, drop a comment below and we will be happy to assist!
About the Author
A co-founder of Living Leaf Tea, Edward Allistone is a tea lover, who divides his time between martial arts, photography and teaching. Currently living in Moscow, getting to know Russian tea culture and exploring the city.
It is always good to be aware of scams when travelling. Whilst it is quite unlikely for you to fall victim, it can ruin your trip, and the more aware you are, the better. Have a read through this list and become familiar with all of the most common tricks and scams aimed at separating you from your belongings and money. Whilst most of these scams are listed in various countries, variations of them can be found all over the world. Better to be safe than sorry!
If you’re interested in becoming an ESL teacher, then you’re interested at the right time because the market is hot. According to the British Council, in 2015 there were 1.7 billion people who were learning and using English. By 2020, this is expect to reach 2 billion.
And if you’re looking for teaching English in China opportunities, then you’re in luck because in China alone, there were 300 million people learning English according to Chinese Vice Premier Liu Yandong.
The market has never been hotter for you to join forces with other ESL teachers to help the eager students who are waiting to learn English. They’re going to need your help.
If you’re wondering how you can become an ESL teacher, follow these steps:
Step 1: Earn An ESL Certification
First, you’re going to need to earn a TEFL or TESOL certification that will allow you to qualify for an ESL position. These are short online courses that you can complete in a relatively quick amount of time. In some cases, for instance if you live in a larger city, you’re able to take one of these classes in-person if you wish. Study hard and pass your final test and you’re all set for step two!
Step 2: Join An Organization
There are a number of organizations out there that you can join in order to meet people, find jobs, and gain advice. These organizations are: TESOL, AAAL, IAWE, and the ILTA. These organizations are key for getting further down the path towards become a full or part-time ESL teacher. It’s okay to join multiple organizations if you want to be as prepared as possible.
Step 3: Decide Where You Want To Go
WIth so many teaching opportunities all around the world, it’s hard to decide where exactly you want to go. If you’d like to remain in the United States, you will need to pass a state exam. If you choose to study in Spain or France, you may need to pass other qualifications. Choose your top five places to teach and begin to research the local markets in them. From there you will gain a good understand of the place that fits you best.
Step 4: Apply For Jobs
Once you know where you wish to go, it’s time to apply for a job! Apply for any jobs that gain your interest. It’s advisable to apply to a few at a time so that you can have the best chance of getting a job. This is an exciting time, but make sure that you have all of your application requirements complete. You’re going to need proof of your certification, a resume, and maybe a cover letter. Spend some time making sure your application packet is current and looks professiona.
Step 4: Pack
Once you have the job, it’s time to pack and let the good news sink in that you’re on your way. This is a wonderful time to relax for a little while after all the hard work you’ve put in to get certified and find a job. If you’re teaching abroad, you’ll be living overseas for a long time, so packing needs to be approached a little differently than a week-long vacation.
Create a list of all the things that you need and read some blog tips on the best methods to pack effectively. It’s important to not stress over not being able to bring everything you want to because you’ll be able to buy those things in your new country.
Step 5: Adjust To The Culture
Now that you’re all packed, it’s time to do your best to adjust to the culture before you arrive. There’s always going to be culture shock, but you can help to minimize it so you’re a little less surprised at local customs. Watch plenty of documentaries about the country and read books on it as well. This should help you begin to understand the country before you arrive.
Step 6: Join A Language Class
While knowing the native tongue isn’t a requirement, you may as well learn another language while you’re there too, right? If the new country speakers another language, see what language classes are offered that you can join. Pick up a phrase book and use tools such as Duolingo to help you get the basics down.
Sadly we cannot cover everything about teaching English as a second language in only 800 words, but this article should serve as a wonderful jumping off point so that you can get started on your quest. Teaching English is a rewarding experience that will provide you with a lifetime of memories. We wish you the best of luck in your endeavors!
We are proud to have held our first presentation & competition evening at University College London (UCL) last night. I think all present will agree that it was an interesting evening with lots of different opinions and views expressed, which were rewarded with some amazing prizes.
We asked select UCL students to answer one of three questions;
– Is international travel compatible with a sustainable lifestyle? – Is it better to volunteer abroad, or at home? – What does diversity mean for you in the 21st Century?
9 entries were shortlisted and asked to give a 5-minute TED-style talk on their chosen question. Their answers were diverse and thought-provoking and we very much enjoyed listening to them all. The prizes have been awarded to;
1st prize – Liv Vage – 3 months on the Business Internship in Thailand – courtesy of AIP.
2nd Prize – Jessica Webster – 1 month on the Human Right Internship in Tanzania – courtesy of Karibu Tanzanite.
3rd Prize – Shayna Kowalczyk – 2 weeks on the Sea Turtle Rehabilitation Internship in Costa Rica – courtesy of LAST.
The evening was held in conjunction with the Global Brigades and the Arts & Sciences Societies at UCL – we would like to thank them warmly for helping organise the event. Below you can view the winners and some runners-up presentation videos and essays;
Burning the planet to get a sunburn – is international travel compatible with a sustainable lifestyle?
Liv Vage – 1st Prize Winner
We are at an interesting junction in history; humans have never been more connected, and never more polluting. The annual CO2 emission for the average world citizen is 5 metric tons. Now consider that a round-trip from London to New York emits 2-3 tons per person. If you get on a few international flights annually, that alone makes you emit more than the average human. There are also millions just like you, working hard on pulling that world average up. Is international travel in any way compatible with a sustainable lifestyle? The short answer is no. The complete answer is slightly more complex.
Air travel only accounts for about two percent of global CO2 emissions. There are other, much more potent causes at play. Electricity consumption accounts for 30 percent of the emissions, and travel in general for 26 percent. We tend to think that technology improvements will at some point solve this. In fact, however, even a huge emitter such the US could be entirely dependent on clean sources by 2030 depending on technology available today. This shift will not happen. It would require enormous investments, and large stakeholders such as the oil industry would need to willingly step back.
As conscious citizens, we can apply economic and political pressure to push for that change. Opting for green choices such as electric cars, shows policy makers and producers what consumers want. Private initiatives such as Elon Musk’s solar panel roof tiles also put the fossil energy industries at risk. Even something small like asking airlines about their sustainability programs show companies that they need to consider the environment if they are to survive. The impact of such pressures can greatly exceed the impact of cancelling your holiday plans. Therefore, a sustainable lifestyle can indeed include air travel if it also includes pushing for change where it matters.
Nevertheless, travel emissions are only going to increase. Since 1990, air travel emission has increased by 83 percent. As globalization and economic development continues, this trend will only accelerate. Not only does that mean more CO2, it also means more noise pollution and possibly reduced water and air quality around airports. And to make matters worse, there is very little incentive for the industry to improve. Who is going to be held responsible for the emissions for an Air Qatar flight from the UK to Dar es Salaam carrying passengers from 20 different countries? That’s right, no one. International law and agreements generally don’t apply to flight emissions. Even the Kyoto protocol has no clause determining responsibility for these emissions. There is some economic motivation for increasing fuel efficiency. Otherwise, the demand for international flights is so large and fast growing that an airline will gain very little from improving their fuel or green technology.
Should we therefore strive to reduce all our travels? Not necessarily – we need to be aware that reducing travelling would have enormous impacts. Being deeply connected is what makes businesses thrive, our cultural understanding grow, and our holidays sparkle. If we look to the young, we can get a picture of what our travelling future holds. A large study showed that young travelers are now traveling more often, staying longer, spending more, and in need of an immersive experience. The modern aspiring student wishes to explore overseas universities, workplaces, and cultures. These are positive trends, and not something we want to discourage.
We seem to be at an impasse. Air traveling pollutes massively, but the cost of giving it up is immense. There seems no magic technology to fix pollution levels, and little incentive to try to develop this. Therefore, to make international travel compatible with a sustainable lifestyle, we can firstly look to alternatives when possible. In Europe, for instance, train travel can be a viable option. Most importantly – each avid traveller should compensate by being the incentive for industries and policy makers to make changes where the technology is available, and where we figured out the magic fixes a long time ago.
Is it better to volunteer abroad, or at home?
Jessica Webster – 2nd prize Winner
In recent years, accusations of “voluntourism” have been, often justifiably, used against young British people who volunteer abroad. Critics argue that well-meaning infrastructure-building, short-term teaching support and material donations provide more of a hindrance to the developing world than a help. In contrast, as government cuts continue to decimate services for the most vulnerable, it begs the question as to why so few are willing to donate their time to supporting vulnerable people within the UK. The fact is; it should not be an “either/or” scenario. Volunteering abroad should be embraced as an opportunity to build connections with people different from oneself, learn lessons about other cultures, and find genuine empathy and drive to help the vulnerable. If individuals learned these lessons from volunteering abroad, viewing their opportunity as a chance to learn and receive as much as to give, many current issues at home would be addressed. Overseas volunteers could be forerunners in providing resolutions to inter-cultural and inter-class animosity; and could champion the rights of vulnerable people – homeless, elderly, disabled, immigrant – whose plight they have witnessed abroad.
This debate is extremely polemic: whereas 0.7% of the UK’s budget (£12.2bn) continues to be donated to developing countries, recent cuts to the annual domestic social security budget have reached nearly £30bn in the last 4 years. I will not spend time arguing the obvious, albeit over-simple, answer – that support at home and abroad should not be mutually exclusive, and should and could be priorities of the budget. Rather, I aim to counter questions such as ‘isn’t it all a waste of time and money?’,‘why is it our responsibility?’, and ‘how can you help people whose culture you don’t understand?’.
First and foremost, so many of the greatest issues with Aid could be overcome by individuals volunteering and helping overseas. The media often viciously exposes the failure of direct Financial Aid between governments. Countless cases have emerged where enormous sums of money have simply gone straight into the pockets of corrupt leaders, rather than destitute populations. An arbitrarily chosen Daily Mail article from June 2011 epitomises this: ‘UK aid cash helped African dictator buy himself a £30m jet’. Unsurprisingly, scandals such as this have wholly undermined Aid programmes. Alternatively, volunteering with NGOs allows development to happen from the bottom, upwards, as individuals from the UK can transfer their skills, understanding and, where appropriate, allocate material fundraising, to specific areas.
It must be made clear here that the very real element of patronising, self-indulgent volunteering must be avoided here. Many have sardonically invoked Rudyard Kipling’s imperialist poem “The White Man’s Burden”, in suggesting that Western individuals go to developing countries with a ‘save the world’ attitude. Paradoxically, when sensibly and sensitively done, it is volunteering that can cure this harmful attitude and its effects, on both sides. On the one hand, by travelling abroad and experiencing a tangible, accessible, vibrant community of people, the volunteer will inevitably lose some of his or her pre-conceptions that are residue from the colonial era. Alongside this, the sharing of values and ideas for progress can be conveyed along friendship terms, rather than imposed (as in the colonial era) or viewed as simply going one way.
To relate this issue of British colonial history directly to the question of ‘responsibility’, it is evident that Britain owes much to countries whose wealth and cultures were plundered for the sake of European powers. Comedian and social commentator Frankie Boyle addresses this in his derisive response to the mantra ‘Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Give him a fishing rod and he can feed himself’. ‘Alternatively,’ Boyle states, ‘don’t poison the fishing waters, abduct his great-grandparents into slavery, then turn up 400 years later on your gap year talking a lot of shite about fish’! In less colloquial terms, the argument that nations should be left to develop themselves and not to depend on more powerful “Global North” nations ignores the fact that the “Global North” was built at the expense of many nations now in need. As has been discussed, it is not a solution to simply pour money into the countries – and this includes well-meaning direct donations. Dambisa Moyo’s Dead Aid uses the example of the “mosquito nets” as its ‘”fish”. She envisages a volunteering or charity programme that donates thousands of nets to a community at risk of malaria. This well-meaning act, however, leaves the community both bereft of nets when they need replacing, and also does not contribute to a financially stable society. If the programme chose instead to invest in a mosquito-net-making individual, who could expand his business, hire workers who could then financially support their families, send their children to school and afford to buy future nets, the “rod” would be made sustainable. Not only is this a duty we owe to the developing world, but also the investment – in multiple forms – would be made.
With this, we can see how issues at home, within the UK could be aided by volunteers going abroad. Financially, this is clear. Whilst a globalised world should be one where people have the freedom to live where they wish, it is not a world where everyone simply departs their dire nations to find solace elsewhere. Instead, investment in people, fulfilled by overseas volunteers and NGOs teaching, engaging and supporting communities to thrive, will contribute to a world in which fewer nations depend on Financial Aid from others. Moreover, volunteering proves an investment in relationship, and an investment in mutual cultural understanding. As refugee crises, rising extremism, and media-fuelled intolerance enhance an “us and them” stance, this is of integral contemporary importance. In travelling to other parts of the world, and working alongside people of varying origins, cultures and customs, individuals learn empathy, communication and appreciation of others. In vibrant, multicultural, and relatively wealthy Britain, it is this attitude of common goal that needs adopting. Volunteering overseas can teach that.
What does Diversity mean for you in the 21st Century?
Shayna Kowalczyk – 3rd Prize Winner
Last year, the BBC were accused of being ‘too diverse’. Why? Because 13.4% of their staff were black or minority ethnic when only 12.8% of the UK population was non-white. The Sun was, naturally, outraged at the BBC’s ‘racist’ agenda, as were a surprisingly large amount of the British public. ‘Will you now be hiring white individuals only for some positions?’- a rhetorical question from a disgruntled (white, male?) reader in the comments section.
Diversity is one of those buzz words that has long since lost it’s original meaning, becoming a part of a corporation’s list of public image tick-boxes more than an initiative to include people of all races, genders and sexual orientations in society. What does ‘too diverse’ even mean? If diversity could be measured by simple quotas, then the issues in society that demand we do measure it wouldn’t even exist. The truth is, the numbers are superficial. They’re a guideline to let us know if we’re moving in the right directions but they don’t even begin to give an idea as to how diverse our society really is. The debate over these two percentages is purposely arbitrary, twisting a practical problem into a rant at political correctness.
Diversity in the 21st century is too easy to dismiss as one of those positive ideals we’re all happy to say that we are striving for without doing anything about it.
An example of this is the wide-spread frustration in the LGBT+ community about the representation of gay and lesbian people in films and television programmes. But there’s a whole category devoted to them on Netflix! They’re filling the necessary quota; our film industry is diverse! Is it? Aside from painfully stereotyped characters, the most common complaint is that gay and lesbian films are so often tragic, directors exploiting the stories of a minority group for the catharsis of a wider audience who are taught only to feel pity towards them, glad that they, as ‘normal’ people, don’t have to go through the same struggles. ‘Blue is Warmest Colour’ is a film directed by the male Abdellatif Kechiche, a tragedy about the coming of age of two young lesbians, and a film that I, as a young woman attracted to girls, felt uncomfortable watching. It was impossible not to be conscious of the way the story had been twisted to entice a male audience. How can we call this diversity? It’s fitting minorities into pre-defined boxes and only telling their stories in the way that doesn’t challenge the public’s views of them.
Where are the romcoms? Where are the thrillers and horrors and sci-fi’s with casual black or gay or female protagonists whose story doesn’t revolve around the fact that they are not white men? And, even more necessary than that, where are the stories that do revolve around the fact that they are not white men? The films that are written and directed and produced by people who have first-hand lived through the experiences that they are trying to portray?
Diversity is about having a voice. It is not about numbers, it is about representation and balances of power. Without having the opportunity to decide how we are portrayed and our stories are told, our presence in society is not equal to diversity. It is just a presence. The benefits of a diverse society are not corporate public image or a sense of righteousness but the collaborations of people who think and live differently and who can bring new perspectives to old ideas. In a workplace, it is not enough to have the necessary quota of jobs given to women. It has to be a certain percentage of jobs at each wage level, with the aim of women having just as much control over the progression of the company as men.
We are getting there. And whilst I can mock and belittle the idea of filling quotas all I like, the truth is that at least it’s something. If a university is forced to take women and people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds because of an implemented quota, then who am I to complain? It’s easy to regulate and it gives them a step up the ladder. I just hope that the glass ceiling a few rungs up isn’t too thick.
I am a young, mixed-race, bisexual woman. Diversity to me in the 21st century is the key to my future. On a large scale, it’s about representation and equal opportunities. But on a small scale it’s about our own little neighbourhoods and who we invite to our children’s birthday parties and whether we make an effort to learn each other’s languages or recipes. I want to be considered for a job the same way that that a white, male peer would be. I want to see people like me on the news and in tv shows. But I also want to be part of a community where I don’t feel like I have to hide any part of my identity in order to fit in. Diversity for me is about feeling comfortable. It’s chatting about my past relationships with girls without anyone looking squeamish and having people make the effort to spell my Indian and Polish names without deciding that it’s just too much effort. It’s about my knowledge of an Asian country being considered just as interesting as a European one and it’s about the feminist issues that affect my wellbeing being contemplated rather than overlooked.
It is difficult to explain the necessity of diversity to anyone who has never been at a disadvantage because of a lack of it. But the likelihood is that we all have some aspects of our identity which aren’t the norm and which we wish didn’t set us aside. We just need to learn to admire those aspects of identity in other people. Maybe it’s a cliché but it’s true: that our society will benefit when we celebrate what divides us.
What does Diversity mean for you in the 21st Century?
Chris Vrettos – Runner Up
The simple answer would be: Diversity means as much as what we have to gain. The stakes are really high and so are the gains.
Diversity is the core value of justice and democracy and it has to be insured and protected as part of our very understanding of life in the future
To talk about diversity you need to talk about understanding, inclusivity and public participation. All people -of any and every background- need to be represented and actively participate in a healthy democratic process. Democracy has failings, but it is still the best system for organizing societies that we have been able to invent. Maybe its is because of such failings that in Greece, the birthplace of modern democracy, that the third biggest parliamentary party is a far right one. Because that is how democracy works. It may be flawed, there might be better political or philosophical alternatives, which our minds are yet to conceive, but it leaves no one behind or forgotten. Or at least that’s how it’s supposed to work.
To talk about diversity you need to talk about both majorities and minorities. A black, atheist, transexual woman from Zimbabwe should not be more or less equal to a white, Christian, straight man from the United States of America.
To talk about diversity is to talk about religious freedom, voting rights, sexual rights, individual rights, human rights, animal rights, the “parliament of things”, (as Bruno Latour envisioned it) the cosmos (as philosopher of science Michel Serres has reminded us) or the “oddkin” (as feminist activist Donna Haraway imagines it). Is there anything more beautiful than getting in the tube in a busy stop in London or New York and observing the wealth of differences mingling around you? People of different colours, with different clothes, different looks, different directions, different accents, a different consciousness, but the same human face. The face of humanity. Hopefully also the mind of a humanity that sees itself as one part of a larger biosphere.
In the history of literature there are multiple bleak references of dystopian futures where humans work as parts of a machine. All heading the same way, in the same grey clothes, with the same expressionless face. But I do not need to delve into that literature. Visions of such homogenous populations are winning political ground all across the world as fear is dictating decisions. On the grounds of hypothesized white supremacy, national security or plain intolerance, nations are closing their borders in the hope of reliving that abstract, fleeting moment in pre-Tower-of-Babel- human history, [or even pre- Twin Towers-9/11-bliss] when everyone spoke the same language and came from the same cultural background.
Political instability is compounded by (and arguably owed to) wealth inequality. And that two hundred-year process of creating that extreme wealth inequality in modern capitalist societies is also leading to increasing environmental instability. Each subsequent year is declared as the hottest year on record, with 2017 faithfully following the same trajectory. These three phenomena -political instability, wealth inequality and environmental destruction- are inextricably linked. We need to rethink our current social and political systems and closely examine to what extent they are responsible for the state of the world today. Oxfam reports that 8 people own more wealth than 3.5 billion people combined. This degree of disenfranchisement may not justify the ‘refuge’ of people to far-right ideas, but it does partly explain it.
We have “to stay with the trouble” as Haraway well phrased it; and this means engage with the present in all its fluidity, “as mortal critters entwined in myriad unfinished configurations of places, times, maters, meanings”
We need to step up as citizens of the cosmos and reclaim democracy as the collective-participatory process we envisioned and envision it to be, not its present fetishized form of exclusive lobbyist representation. The voice of the people living in the islands of the Pacific Ocean should not be less important than the voice of powerful oil companies’ CEOs. The voice of the people from rich suburbs should not be stronger than the voice of the people living next to waste-processing factories, where the air is deemed too toxic for inhalation.
Two course-mates and me have “stayed with the trouble “: we created a platform called ‘The Climate Collective’. We ask people from all around the world, no matter their political or religious beliefs, their economic status or the colour of their skin, to share with us their views and experiences on climate change and the environment. We aim to personalise climate change, an issue hitherto often coined as being ‘too distant’, ‘vague’ or ‘overly scientific’, while making up for the lack of coverage on mainstream media. By giving climate change, – an issue that transcends us as individuals-, an everyday human face, we can directly convey the message of the importance of collective action. We can use diversity as a toolbox for inventive connection and effective response.
Our stories collected so far range from a nun in Myanmar, who links climate change to her religious beliefs, to an English teenager who believes that climate change is used mainly to distract us from other issues like the war in Syria. Some of the participants offer concrete solutions in battling climate change, like a girl from Colorado US or a guy from Cork Ireland, who argue that eating less meat is the way to go.
The picture attached above was uploaded by a user on Twitter with the mocking caption ‘The future that liberals want’. As a liberal I would agree that this is the future I want. A future where such different people can coexist, interact and not only ride the same train, but also work together towards not a future, but the present they all want. Diversity for me is when all bodies have a voice. And this voice is used as a building block for change.
Our existence in this planet is fragile and transient. History has taught me one thing: We are slowly but steadily moving in the right direction. Whether you look at worker’s rights, women’s rights, the emancipation of slavery, legalization of gay marriage, or the niche area of animal rights, equality is winning the struggle. Acknowledging this has made me the optimist that I am today and it is the source of all my passionate curiosity, joy and persistence. The war is still on. Let’s make kin. Let’s speak up. Let’s take and give, let’s share responsibility.
Is international travel compatible with a sustainable lifestyle?
Katie Rawlins – Runner up
To answer this question, I must first define what I believe constitutes a sustainable lifestyle. When thinking about sustainability, environmental impact is often the first thing to come to mind, and while it is important I would like to highlight the other aspects of a sustainable lifestyle: economic impact and cultural impact. A sustainable lifestyle should be one that hypothetically could be continued indefinitely so the aim should be to minimise harm and damage. To call travelling sustainable, I believe the impact on these areas; environment, economy and culture, should be minimised and taken into consideration when making decisions of how to travel, where to shop, where to stay and numerous other decisions taken when travelling internationally. For this to be true however, a broad and comprehensive definition of each term must be taken. Economy is the mechanism for the movements of goods and payments, in whatever form they take. Environment encompasses everything that makes up the fabric of someone’s life; climate change, the weather, the flora, fauna and structures that make up their world. And culture accounts for the parts that are not immediately visible, the shared values, norms and customs, languages, the shared soundscapes of daily life, specific meaning taken from actions, art and the world around. I think all these elements must be considered when considering sustainable travel. I will look at each factor in turn and discuss the compatibility of a sustainable life with international travel in that area.
Environment
Living a sustainable life involves taking actions to minimise the impact you have on the environment, this includes thinking about the food miles of your dinner, the carbon footprint of your car and where your landfill goes. So, sustainable international travel poses one big problem; how do you get where you are going? For many people the answer is a plane. With increasing airport capacity and development all over the world flights are getting cheaper and more connected; you can now go where you want less money and less time. It’s the easy option and for some, the only one considered but is it possible to take a plane and still claim to have a sustainable lifestyle?
2% of all CO2 emissions come from air travel and even though this figure seems low the demand for air travel is set to double in the next 20 years so this figure seems set to rise. However, looking at total emissions from transport, air transport only makes up 12% of the total emissions compared to 74% from road transport. So, as a part of a sustainable lifestyle you might find that your car creates a larger carbon footprint than a return flight once a year to holiday. Flying seems to be a non-negotiable part of the transport system and are around 80% more efficient than when they were first commercialised so if this efficiency continues to improve a sustainable lifestyle could involve none or very few domestic road journeys and one (return) international flight a year. So, the point here is that travelling anywhere, in any means aside from walking, will have some carbon and environmental footprint so the dilemma is less between which transport you take and more between whether you travel at all. One solution to this would be to travel domestically by bike and foot which would be the most carbon neutral option.
Economy
A sustainable lifestyle should promote stability in the local economy. Looking after the local and global economy is a concern that weighs heavily on the collective conscious following numerous recessions and financial crashes all over the world and so it should too on any traveller looking to be sustainable. I think a traveller can help maintain and promote the local economy by bringing investment however the risk with this is making sure money doesn’t destabilise or inflate certain trades. I believe it is possible to have a neutral or positive effect on the economy with international travel. The additional cash flow brought by tourists can enable people save or invest in the future allowing longer term sustainable development. However, care should be taken so that incoming money isn’t siphoned straight out of the community. This could be talking to locals and finding out where money goes or just avoiding chain stores where the profits may not be reinvested into community. The same goes for selecting accommodation. Injections of money in the right places in the local economy can bring benefits enabling investments in local projects, improved revenues enabling families and business to spend in ways that will benefit them and so the community. So, I believe that travelling can have, with a little care and research, a positive, or at least neutral effect, on the economy.
Culture
Living in a sustainable way should also involve not imposing your ideas and customs on others. In a similar vein to the economy, I think sustainable travelling should minimise the impact felt by the culture you might be parachuting into. This could involve taking a language class to help communications in a country where little or none of your native language is spoken, or finding a local translator before you go who you can work with. It could also be researching the culture and finding out whether your culture clashes with local beliefs and finding a way to compromise or follow the local customs.
In conclusion, I think that in terms of environmental impact any type of travelling will have an impact but I also believe that in our globalised world of today visiting and understanding other cultures is key, now more than ever. So, staying in your home country is an option to minimise carbon footprint but I also think travelling is an enriching and important part of being a global citizen and I believe it can be part of a sustainable lifestyle but must be a careful and considered action that fits in with your personal standard of sustainability.
Another year, another January has passed and that means our annual essay competition together with the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) went ahead and another great evening in London was spent choosing the worthy winners! This year’s essay question revolved around the very current topic of Brexit and how animal welfare in Britain might be affected as a result of leaving the EU. As usual, the essay question was a challenge but the winners definitely rose to it and presented some very interesting arguments
We at Global Nomadic are as always very proud to support this event and witness the extraordinary passion and knowledge displayed by the students at the RVC.
We invite you to read 6 of the entries below, and add your comments and views on this very interesting discussion. You can also continue the conversation on our Facebook Group.
Louise Dunby – 1st Prize winner of 1 week on the Veterinary Internship in the Cook Islands
On the 23rd of June 2016, a 52% majority of voters chose for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union (BBC news, 2016). This decision is set to massively impact the public domain, from health and safety to workers rights, however a subject often overlooked during the leave campaign was how this decision will affect animal welfare. At present an estimated 80% of UK animal welfare legislations originate from the EU (RSPCA, 2016a), and although specific legislation set at national level such as the Animal Welfare Act (2006) and the Hunting Act (2004) will remain unchanged, many of the welfare friendly laws and regulations we have in place, including the way in which farm animals are reared, produced, transported and slaughtered are not a part of this (Bowles, 2016). Furthermore, these EU legislations include the protection of wildlife and birds, the inspection of animals kept in zoos, and consumer information with regards to labelling of food products. Nine EU laws regulate the use of animals in research, covering the breeding and use of animals for science, the prohibition of the marketing and the import of cosmetics products testing (RSPCA, 2016b). These laws commit the EU and Member States to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting other legislation and customs, particularly in relation to religious and cultural traditions (Gittins, 2016). So the question is, with the UK now set to Brexit will these laws be changed, and if so how will this impact animal welfare?
Of the 44 EU legislations, 13 are Directives, which have already been employed into existing UK legislation. The remaining 31 laws are regulations and decisions, which, although currently applicable, may be automatically removed once article 50 is finalised in Spring 2019 unless Parliament legislates for them to remain (RSPCA, 2016b). The UK is a well-developed, advanced country often thought to be a leader in animal welfare; In 1822 Britain became one of the first countries to pass any form of protective legislation for farm animals (Rayner, 2016). Brexit now allows the UK to be free from the constraints of the EU, and the country will theoretically now be able to raise its animal welfare standards whilst protecting UK farmers by banning lower welfare imports (Stevenson, 2016). So Brexit can only be a positive change for animal welfare, surely?
Several groups argue that by leaving the EU, the UK has increased freedom to set higher standards for animal welfare (Chiorando, 2016). In 2015, British farmers received £3.5 billion in subsidies from the EU and although 10% of this was used to help improve conservation and protect habitats, less than 0.1% was used to directly help animal welfare (Bowles, 2016). Agricultural minister George Eustice argues that as an independent country, we can now redirect existing EU grants to farmers, subsiding higher welfare systems in British farming by introducing animal welfare assurance schemes, and therefore prevent being financially undercut by foreign farms operating to weaker standards (CASJ, 2016). Firmer welfare measures could prohibit non-stun slaughter of farm animals, which is already prohibited in three other EU countries, and implement mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses (RSPCA, 2016a). Furthermore, at present, EU rules prevent the UK from banning the live export of farm animals or the importation of some products that are no longer produced in the UK for ethical animal welfare reasons, such as fur. As a self-governing country post Brexit, we may be able to restrict these importations that have been produced at lower welfare standards. (CASJ, 2016).
However, there are also opposing views about how this change may impact animal welfare. Despite the UK’s long standing reputation as a leader in animal welfare, recent positive initiatives have been led by other countries such as Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, without UK involvement (Stevenson, 2016). In some instances the UK has in fact lobbied against EU moves to improve animals’ welfare. An example of this is UK government opposition to a proposed ban on the importation of products from cloned farm animals (Defra, 2013). Similarly, it was the EU that introduced a ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics in 2013, whilst the UK government fails to follow EU rules on animal experimentation by ignoring required limits on pain and suffering (CASJ, 2016). Additionally, other developed countries not part of the EU including the USA and China have far fewer restrictions on what farmers are allowed to do, and more cost effective measures such as intensive factory-farming are more popular, resulting in cheaper food, but poorer conditions (Wedderburn, 2016). It is acknowledged that UK governments are reluctant to implement higher standards with farm animal welfare due to the competitiveness of the industry (RSPCA, 2016a). This may mean that our subsidies could be used to help large scale, less welfare friendly intensive farming. Furthermore, The RSPCA affirms that when the UK leaves the EU, it will be unable to ban live exports and fur products because of the need to adhere to EU rules to be able to carry on trading and adhere to World Trade Organisation rules (RSPCA, 2016c). Conversely, some organisations believe that the loss of the UK input at the negotiation level could have an adverse impact on the pace and scope of future EU animal welfare legislations. Without the UK’s input, non-stun slaughter may become more accepted and further improvements in welfare may stall (Gittins, 2016).
In conclusion, we cannot say at this point what Brexit really means for animal welfare. Leaving the EU presents an exciting opportunity for the UK to improve standards and bring in positive new regulations. However, we must also remember that Brexit could lead to a decline in animal welfare, with the demand for quick and profitable trade deals decreasing quality and standards as the UK seeks to continue relations across the world. Furthermore, if the UK no longer has its say on further EU welfare regulations, will animal welfare lose out to globalisation? Only time will tell.
Rebekah Wright – 2nd prize winner of 1 week at the Wildlife Rehabilitation project in Guatemala
The vote to leave the EU has caused upset among many in Britain, and there is no doubt that once Brexit comes into effect, that there will be changes, so what will this mean with regards the animal welfare?
The UK is governed by two groups of laws, those set on a National level and on an EU level. National laws, enforcing the restrictions on tail docking and hunting for example, such as the ‘Animal Welfare Act’ (England and wales) and the ‘Welfare on Animal Acts’ (NI) (Wedderburn 2016) will predictably remain unchanged, however all EU laws from the past 42 years, of which there are round forty-four (Wedderburn 2016), will be up in the air regarding what to still enforce and what to change.
The main animal welfare legislations of the European Commission focus on farm animal welfare (over seventeen laws), animal transport and animal slaughter for consumption (European Commission 2016). Britain has been a very prominent figure in decisions encompassing these factors. It is a concern that once we leave, the regulation of these laws that improve farm animal lives, could slacken in favour of generating more affordable produce, especially when it is predicted that EU countries could become less desirable with global trade markets post Brexit, hence resulting in a strain on their economy (Irwin 2015). Perhaps the same can be said for UK farm animals in the less likely event that they cannot sustain equivalent subsides that farmers have previously received from the EU, which was €3.5billion alone in 2015 (Wedderburn 2016). However it is more probable that subsides will be provided, as the government has agreed to match them until 2020 (Robertson 2017), and that welfare will be increased even more so (Bullion and Monbiot 2017). An RSPCA poll shows 8/10 people want increased welfare in UK farming and production, for example; calls to introduce CCTV into abattoirs (Green 2017). Another matter that could be improved within the UK is to reduce the periods of time animals can be in transit and to enforce more stringent labelling of meat and produce origins. Unfortunately it may become worse in EU countries if Britain has no influence anymore, particularly for equines, where there have already been many cases of terrible conditions and illegal transportation and slaughter and for living conditions of egg laying poultry.
Twelve laws govern the welfare of wildlife in the UK, and are either independent or part of international treaties, the UK is obliged to continue following the treaties’ guidelines involving the banning of capturing wild fowl, monitoring the transport of endangered species through the UK and zoo and fishing requirements. Britain is also a member of the UN CITES and OIE (Bowles and Williams 2016), therefore welfare standards will be retained if not improved, and the UK can continue to be involved with global animal welfare decisions.
Animal Testing is unfortunately an area in which Britain is still a prominent user, in comparison to other EU countries. Concerns have been raised that this could become more severe upon leaving the EU, despite Britain previously being at the forefront of some major EU welfare decisions such as banning the use of apes in testing. Britain will need to follow the lead of other countries who are taking measures to reduce testing, such as those already using 3D skin cultures instead of live animals (Jeory 2016), if the UK is to continue moving forward and act as an advocate for animal welfare.
In conclusion, I feel that there will be mass changes occurring for Britain and Europe in the coming years, but animal welfare and protection in Britain will hopefully be one of the factors that actually improves. There will be a lot of pressure on the government to listen to the various animal charities and welfare groups, and indeed the general public. I believe the UK is a powerful nation and needs to set an example for others to look up to and follow, perhaps then there will be less reason to worry about Europe letting welfare drop if they can see that the UK is still maintaining high standards for animals despite the difficult circumstances.
Sam Price – 3rd prize winner of a free Placement Support Package to any of our projects
The historic referendum which saw Britain leave the EU sent shockwaves around the continent. For most people, the main concern post Brexit relates to money. How will mortgage payments be affected? What will happen the cost of holidays abroad? These are some typical questions people are seeking answers to.
Sadly, the effect of Brexit on our animals has received little attention. During EU membership, Britain has emerged as a world leader in animal welfare standards. Under legislation set out by the EU, Britain has abolished testing of animals for cosmetic products, phased out individual sow crates and banned conventional cages for laying hens. Given such achievements, it worrying to consider the impact leaving the EU could have on future standards of animal welfare in Britain.
Perhaps the primary threat will be a loss in funding provided by the EU. Currently, the EU provides up to 50% of the national government cost for the eradication and surveillance of animal diseases including TB, salmonella and avian influenza. In the face of an ever changing world, with a rapidly expanding transport network and issues such as the antimicrobial resistance crisis, there is much uncertainty as to when the next outbreak will occur and without financial backing from the EU, such an outbreak could be disastrous to animal welfare.
As a global food and drink exporter, Britain is heavily reliant on the establishment of trade deals to facilitate overseas sales. Those in place with other member EU states represent perhaps the most important, generating £9.37 billion per year, over 50% of Britain’s total export income. Membership of the EU has enabled this degree of exportation through involving minimal bureaucracy for the establishment of trade deals with other member states.
To continue with current levels of exportation to Europe, it’s likely that Britain will need to comply with existing EU regulations despite having no influence on their criteria. Without the ability to negotiate and introduce lacking animal welfare legislation, such as harmonised standards for dairy cows, it could lead to reduced standards of welfare in Europe to facilitate increased production. In order to remain competitive within the European market, the UK farming sector might also be forced to also reduce its welfare standards.
Opting out of EU membership does, however, present opportunities for the improvement of welfare standards in Britain. For the farming sector, trying to carry out simple tasks can be frustratingly complicated. From the number of annual farm inspections to the dimensions of EU billboards farmers are forced to put up. As an independent nation, the likes of organisations such as DEFRA will be able to implement its own ideas to improve the health of our livestock without fretting whether they are complying with certain regulations. For example, the implementation of a new system of farm subsidies could provide increased income to farmers, in turn providing more money to improve animal welfare.
Independence from the EU also presents the opportunity to improve welfare standards of domestic animals. The importation of puppies has soared to 60,000 since the EU amended the law in 2013 to allow free movement of pets into Britain. This has given rise to an 84% increase in the number of “toy” dog breeds up for rehoming after falling victim to a passing trend for ‘handbag dogs’.
Current EU legislation for the importation of pets is wide open to manipulation, with vets falsifying passport data, ineffective border controls and a lack of penalties for illegal importation. Having direct control over its importation regulations Britain can abolish the existing EU laws prone to the falsification of passport data and lacking penalties for illegal importation, offering a real chance of improving domestic animal welfare, through a reduction in ‘puppy farming’ and lowering the number of abandoned dogs.
While its clear there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding whether Brexit will have a positive impact on our standards of animal welfare, there are clearly areas which have the potential to undergo a much needed improvement.
Ruth Holwell
To fully comprehend the effect of Brexit on animal welfare protection, it must be understood that animals in European Union (EU) countries and worldwide are protected to a different set of standards according to the laws of the various countries but also, perhaps, due to the diversity of cultural attitudes. Traditional practices, availability of resources and standards of education all result in different prioritisation of animal welfare protection – in law and more pertinently, in practice. In the current political climate, with uncertainty around important issues as we extricate ourselves from the EU, there is concern that when Britain is no longer under EU regulation, its laws will offer less protection to its animals.
Since the result of the referendum, there has been little promised in terms of animal welfare protection and to glean understanding of the changes likely to occur, the attitude of the British government and that of the remaining EU officials must be analysed. In 2010, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government implemented an end to ‘gold-plating’, the practice of improving on minimal EU regulations in UK legislation. This change exemplifies the larger attitude of the government as it pursues a ‘deregulatory agenda’, scrapping statutory codes in favour of industry codes, potentially disregarding established standards of animal welfare for economic advantage. Critical bodies, such as the RSPCA, are concerned that this deregulatory agenda will weaken animal welfare enforcement and that careless practice will go unchecked, resulting in harm to animals. It is disputable whether the authority given to the industry is of such importance to cause significant damage to welfare, however the government handing over any such responsibility casts a disturbing light on political attitudes to animal welfare protection.
Without prioritisation within mainstream British politics and without regulation from the EU, farm animals, pets and wildlife alike are at risk as Britain reviews its laws post Brexit. It is known that the EU has ensured strident enforcement of animal welfare, with around 80% of Britain’s animal welfare laws originating from EU regulations. Britain has a history of leading the movement for better welfare, for example banning the veal crate and sow stall in 1990, years before the rest of the EU, however, recent initiatives have been led without the support of the UK. Indeed the UK has lobbied against certain animal welfare improvements such as the ban on the importation of products from cloned farm animals. The government’s loss of interest in animal welfare protection suggests that Britain leaving the EU will have no particular impact on the standards of the remaining EU countries and that it is Britain itself that will suffer from disinterest in maintaining and developing standards.
Leaving the EU does give Britain the freedom to advance its animal welfare protection, although while theoretically Britain can implement laws to improve its standards, EU and WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules will still apply, hampering potential animal welfare initiatives such as the ban on live exports – a campaign that relies heavily on the support of the EU for implementation and enforcement. The influence that Britain will have in said rules is unknown, so current discussions and the trade deals made are of paramount importance to animal welfare and rely on the attitude of the British government towards that.
It is important to remember that the government’s attitudes largely reflect those of its people, and while the World Animal Protection Index labels the UK grade A for overall animal welfare, it scores poorly for ‘education on animal care and protection’ so it could be suggested that the recent loss of interest in animal welfare is as a result of poor education. The protestations of a poorly educated public reap little reward, as the confusing and inadequate laws of the hunting ban demonstrate. So surely for true animal welfare improvements post-Brexit, petition for a better education in the subject would reap long term benefits, as the British people and their government review its management, avoiding the potential for damaging change and upholding its long term legacy of animal welfare improvements.
Chelsey Betts
The 23rd June 2016 saw a historic moment when the British people voted to controversially leave the European Union and venture out into the unknown. Once Article 50 is triggered the government will need to decide which, if any, EU laws they will keep over a range of areas, including animal welfare. Currently, there are forty-four EU laws protecting animal welfare, thirteen of these are already implemented into British legislation so Brexit will have no effect on these. However, the remaining thirty-one laws have been applicable in the UK without specific legislation and once Britain leaves the EU these will no longer be valid, it will therefore, be down to the post-Brexit government as whether to scrap or incorporate these into British law (Wedderburn, 2016). Depending on the government on the day this could either be detrimental to animal welfare in the UK or could be an opportunity for further improvement to the present legislation that protects our animals.
According to the Animal protection index, the UK has overall one of the best ranking with regards to animal welfare. Independence from the EU gives the opportunity to further improve on this without EU interference such as the banning of live animal exports, which previously was considered a breach of EU free trade rules (Allin, 2016). Brexit could also see a shift in funding for British farmers. Currently, Britain pays more to the EU in agricultural subsidies than it receives back, with British farmers only receiving 7% of European farming grants in comparison to the 17% that French farmers receive (BBC news 2016). Outside of the EU the British government would be able to use the contribution money to directly fund the needs of the UK farming sector such as farms which raise their animals to a higher welfare standard, an example of this is with poultry farmers. A Guardian analysis found that nearly a quarter of the poultry sold in the UK comes from seven European countries. These countries allow higher stocking densities of chickens than the UK where most farmers are limited to a maximum of 28kg per square meter according to the National Farmers Union. Obviously the British farming industry relies on exporting their goods but as the public are becoming more concerned with ethically sourcing their food it would be beneficial for British farmers who often aim for higher welfare standard to be rewarded for their efforts.
Brexit could also improve the welfare of our companion animals as the government could implement stricter controls on animal movement. The recent outbreak of babesiosis in the UK was a result of animals travelling to the UK without sufficient tick prevention treatment. Previous to 2012 it was compulsory for animals to be treated for ticks in order travel to the UK but this requirement had to be scrapped in order to meet EU regulations of the Pet Travel Scheme (Gov.uk, 2011)(Weaver, 2016). An undercover investigation carried out by the Dogs Trust revealed the Pet Travel Scheme was being massively abused, where fraudulent documentation was being used to illegally smuggle puppies into the UK for sale. This jeopardises the UK’s disease control and puts the welfare of native animals at risk, due to the falsifying of vaccination records. These puppies are often smuggled in horrific conditions for long durations and are usually sold underage. A departure from the current scheme would allow for stricter control of animal movement and therefore improve the welfare of the animals involved (Dogs Trust)
In the past it has also been made evident that some EU animal welfare legislation in is ineffective. The EU tried to end “routine” tail docking in pigs but the Directive lacked clarity resulting in infraction proceedings against nine member states from failing to be abide by this ban. Recent data from the European Commission suggests that only thirteen member countries, including the United Kingdom, are fully compliant (CIWF) (D’Eath et al, 2015).
There is no denying that the European Union has achieved countless results in improving animal welfare such as banning cosmetics animal testing and recognising animals as sentient beings, it also has its limitations. Brexit would allow Britain to improve on the welfare standards already set without having to comply to other member states. Conversely, Britain would no longer be able to take leadership on animal welfare issues in Brussels and so would be less effective at improving animal welfare worldwide (Wilson, 2016). Ultimately the future of animal welfare relies on the government at the time when Britain eventually leaves the European Union. There is the potential for amazing advancements in animal welfare, but whether the government will see this as a priority at a pivotal time in British history remains to be seen. We can only hope that those in charge choose the right path and consider those that cannot speak for themselves.
Jonathan Chantrey
As yet the Government’s Brexit negotiation objectives are unknown, meaning this subject is based around assumptions and public consensus. A recently conducted RSPCA survey1 showed that 81% of the public believe that welfare standards should be maintained if not improved, a motion further supported by the BVA in an open letter to the Government2. What we do know however, are the laws not effected by our decision to leave the EU. The laws imposed by the EU fall into 3 categories: Regulations, Decisions and Directives. Regulations and Decisions are automatically binding, but won’t stand once we leave; whereas Directives are imposed upon a member state to write into their own national law, meaning they will still stand post Brexit along with all other UK laws. This leaves areas of law vulnerable to large scale change, but if we assume public pressure drives Government direction then welfare standards won’t deteriorate, but what form will this take? Will abattoirs become more tightly regulated and monitored? What about non-stun slaughter? Disease surveillance and information sharing is an important preventative measure, will our access change? How are farmers going to cope without EU subsidies? Will the Government replace them? How will this affect the cost of food production?
How are our laws likely to change? Regulations cover many farm animal laws regarding transport, slaughter and product labelling; as well as the pet trade and research industries. Conversely many wildlife laws are covered by international treaties so cannot be altered regardless of Brexit. Whereas the animal welfare act 2006 and the Hunting act 2004 were set by UK Government and so are not at threat of change due to Brexit, these exemplify Britain’s status as a global leader in welfare standards. In 1998 the EU imposed a directive on “the protection of animals of all species kept for the production of food, wool, skin, fur or other farming purposes including fish, reptiles or amphibians”, which essentially amounts to the 5 freedoms. This was altered in 2009 with the Lisbon Treaty which introduced the recognition of sentience in animals whilst also respecting religious beliefs with regards to slaughter3. This suggests that a United Kingdom unbound by EU laws could stipulate higher welfare standards, for example improving legislation regarding non-stun slaughter.
Should non-stun slaughter be banned? Recognising sentience and the prolonged period of consciousness and pain involved in non-stun slaughter creates an ethical dilemma. To improve standards the UK has three options; maintain and improve the practice or, ban the practice with or without banning produce importation. To maintain it we must ensure stricter regulations, abattoir monitoring and appropriate product labelling. To ban the practice and importation of produce we avoid spreading demand into less regulated countries, while disenfranchising the religious communities who consume the meat. To ban the practice and allow trade, providing the producers comply with regulations, avoids excluding religious communities and influences global welfare standards. The former option seems the most likely since the last prime minister pledged to protect the practice for the religious communities4. Currently there are no labelling requirements regarding how meat is slaughtered, leading to inadvertent consumption fabricating the level of demand, causing overproduction and an unnecessarily high level of animals suffering this practice. The ability to write our own laws presents an opportunity to improve conditions and should be recognised and acted upon as such.
Will information sharing suffer in the Brexit negotiations? Great Britain is considered a global Leader in veterinary medicine and welfare standards, disease surveillance forms a large part of the infrastructure upon which this reputation is built. Knowing when to expect a disease aids preparation or even prevention of emerging diseases. For example we are expecting to see clinical cases of Bluetongue virus and African swine fever in the near future, we would not see this coming if we did not share information with our global neighbours. Similarly during our BSE outbreak in 1986, communicating the issue and blocking trade helped prevent the spread of the disease. As our immediate neighbours, Europe presents the greatest risk of disease spread but also the most valuable information sharing resource, communicating this information is vital to prevent unnecessary disease spread and suffering.
Will farmers keep their subsidies? During 2015 Britain’s farmers received an estimated €3.5billion in EU subsidies, accounting for 50-60% of their annual income. If we assume the Government compensates for this after we leave the EU, the next concern is the impact distribution of these funds will have on farming decisions. Will it create a balance between rewarding large farms producing cheap food en mass; and small farms where product quality and animal welfare is prioritised? Will there be any subsidies? The environment secretary is yet to reassure farmers they will remain, yet without them the farming sector will almost certainly collapse.
In conclusion, a lot is unknown about how the UK will be shaped in the coming years following the referendum, but it should be viewed as an opportunity to benefit ourselves, our animals and our country.
We would love to hear your views on this discussion, what do you think? Who do you think has the best argument?
Man-made climate change and the significant effects it has on every single aspect of our civilisation have been called ‘one of the greatest challenges of our time’, in a joint statement from the G20 countries no less. I would go so far as to call it the greatest challenge of our time. No other issue affects every single living organism on Earth to the same extent, from the smallest bee to that most powerful and destructive of predators – humans. And yet, as we enter what will most surely become yet another successively record-hot year, the silence from world leaders is deafening.
Two of the most influential governments on the planet seem dead set on not just ignoring the issue, but actively trying to deceive and misinform their electorates. In the UK, the government of Theresa May wasted no time after the tumultuous EU referendum last summer in promptly abolishing the Department of Energy & Climate Change. At the time, it was seen as a worrying sign that the new government did not take the issues posed by climate change seriously. Last week, it appears those worries were well-founded as the government was accused of trying to bury its own alarming report on climate change, a document clearly outlining the issue as one of the biggest security threats facing the nation. And yet, not a single statement, speech or even tweet was issued by the Environment Secretary, or her department.
Meanwhile over in the US, the newly instated president Trump has not only appointed climate change deniers to head up the Environmental Protection Agency (oh, the irony!), but also removed any mentions of climate change from the White House website and in a chillingly Orwellian move, issued a gag order, preventing department employees to talk to the press, or the public.
Now you might ask yourself, what could possibly be gained by ignoring the most pressing issue facing our entire shared future? In what world is it in the best interest of the public to be kept in the dark on environmental research and climate development, the health of the only planet we inhabit? Is there a financial gain? Are there other, truly sustainable alternatives to renewable energies? And finally, is this compatible with open democracies, as both the UK and the US claim to be? The answer, as I see it, is fundamentally and categorically no to all of the above.
At Global Nomadic, questions and issues concerning our environment, our wildernesses and the wildlife that inhabit them have always been at the forefront of our work. Although we work with organisations operating in a very wide field of sciences, we recognise that without a strong focus on creating a sustainable planet, efforts in mitigating wars, human suffering and economic and civil inequality will always be just that. Efforts – not solutions. It seems as if this is one extraordinarily vital point that is being missed by many leaders of the world today; that environmental issues are not isolated issues, concerned only with polar bear survival or warming oceans. They are inextricably linked with global human well-being and prosperity. Where we fail our environment, we also fail our people. Without true environmental democracy, there can never be democratic equality and justice.
Concerning the great debate of environmental health versus the economy, there are also many falsehoods (or alternative facts as they are now called) in circulation, providing the basis for much destructive policymaking. These all seem to stem from the belief that it can never be profitable to be environmentally considerate, however, this is not the case. Many studies have clearly shown environmental sustainability applied to business practices actually makes more financial sense. Not only has it been found to reduce costs, but attempting to adapt to a resource-scarce future also spurs invention, enhances brand reputations and creates better working environments for employees who feel they are working for a bigger cause. Corporate social responsibility is simply best business practice, for companies looking to make a profit and to society as a whole. It also reinforces the importance of environmental awareness and education, which is not just about saving cute animals and recycling plastic. It’s recognising the many millions of human lives that are directly economically dependent on natural resources, provided by healthy ecosystems. It is recognising that already, more than 12 million deaths each year are directly contributable to environmental degradation. It is realising that striving for improved living conditions for the majority of humans must go hand in hand with striving for a way to sustainably generate resources for those same people. Environmental justice cannot by definition be limited to the 1%.
In an interview transcript published by ABC News, Donald Trump talks about ‘bringing in the feds’ to deal with the ‘thousands of deaths happening in Chicago’. Leaving the question of his party’s stance on gun policy quite aside, we would like to ask if the president is aware of the number of people who die annually as a result of air pollution? We are. It’s 7 million. Seven million people who die as a result of merely breathing. We are also aware that more than a quarter of all deaths in children under the age of five are attributable to environmental degradation. To whom does this make any sense, economical or humanitarian?
In a world where our leaders appear to be failing us, and our future generations, we are fed up with the silence. We are fed up with being politically impartial. We are fed up with ignorance, with injustice and inequality. We are fed up with counting species fallen into extinction. We are fed up with contaminated waters and eradicated forests. We are fed up with the silence.
So let’s start talking. Over the coming year, we will be publishing articles centred on these great challenges and asking you to talk about them too. We want to hear your opinion; we want to see you talking to your family, your neighbours, strangers on the street, on social media channels, at the gym, at school, at work. The time for silence is over. It’s time to talk about why we’re not talking. Are you ready for the challenge?
Our resolution for 2017 is to be more vocal, more outreaching, more educational and more active in fighting environmental ignorance and wilful wrongdoing, wherever we might find it. We know we are not alone in this. Across the world, hundreds upon hundreds of companies, organisations and individuals have voiced their opinion, through open letters to governments, marches and protests, standing up for the values that unite us all. Because environmental responsibility and climate action is not democratically blue or conservative red or any combination of red, white and blue. It is just green. The same green you will find in the Global Nomadic logo, the same green you will find in pristine forests, in the sway of seagrass under the ocean surface, in the parks acting as lungs for our cities. The future of our planet can only be green, it is the only way we can all maintain our presence upon it.
Why not add your voice to the discussion and tell us what you think! Head on over to our dedicated Facebook Group now and get involved, we are waiting to hear from you!
Christmas is just around the corner and for some of us that usually involves some last-minute desperate shopping for stocking fillers. Whether you are trying to find gifts for your avid traveller-friend or perhaps for yourself, we’ve gathered some top gift ideas for the eco-conscious traveller.
Travel in itself isn’t the most environmentally friendly pursuit. Getting on a plane ups your carbon footprint by an uncomfortable sum. And yet travel, in all its many forms is a powerful force for change, including environmental issues. Perhaps your daughter, classmate or cousin are heading to Nicaragua or Indonesia to learn more about permaculture and finding new ways that we can all mutually continue living on this planet without exhausting all of our resources.
So what you can you do mitigate the negative effects of travel? Well, besides paying to carbon offset your flights, you might want to start with your backpack and what goes in it, as it will have a very direct impact on how you (or your cousin) behave and impact your environment on the road. So without further ado, these are our top 10 stocking fillers for the eco-conscious traveller!
Luggage to love
Not technically stocking-filler sized, but if you travel and aren’t the truly ascetic type, you will likely have to start with a bag of some kind to put your clothes and gear in. Depending on who you are, where you are going and on what kind of trip, there is an endless option of luggage. But not all are created equal. Some are created using only or mostly recycled material and this is where you should aim. Also look for brands using non-toxic materials and avoiding plastic. Timbuk2 makes nifty bags using recycled PET from plastic bottles and even recycles your bag when you’re done with it.
Water purifiers
Using old plastic bottles to make bags is a great idea to get rid of some of the 50 billion plastic water bottles that Americans alone go through each year. Another is to not contribute to the use of plastic bottles at all. Enter the Steripen and the LifeStraw. Both are devices which purify water into a potable drink, though with slightly different modes. The LifeStraw acts as a filter, and functions like…well, a straw! The Steripen uses ultraviolet light to purify water in a container such as a reusable water bottle. Unlike the LifeStraw, the Steripen also filters out viruses in addition to water-borne bacteria and protozoa, making it ideal to take on travels to far-flung places where it generally isn’t safe to drink tap water. Not only will you save quite a bit of money not buying plastic bottles every day, you will set an example for other travellers and of course, keep some of those plastic bottles from polluting every corner of our planet.
Reusable straws
Another scourge of the road and indeed everyday life is the ever-present plastic straw, which apparently has to accompany any kind of drink, anywhere. Do you bit and get a reusable straw to carry with you. It weighs next to nothing, takes up very little space and saves the use of one-time-only straws which most of the time end up in the sea, where they are a serious hazard to both birds, marine mammals and fish. Not to mention they never actually go away; when they eventually disintegrate into tiny microparticles, this minuscule plastic debris finds its ways into the bellies of fish and eventually into yours. Reusable straws is a growing industry and you can now find them in an array of materials, from bamboo to metal to glass. You can even find them with a bit of bling if that’s how you roll.
Ditch the packaging – solid shampoo!
Continuing on with reasons to switch from plastic we arrive at your toiletry bag. At the very least, get some reusable travel bottles and refill whenever necessary instead of buying new travel size single use containers of shampoo and body wash. Next step is to fill your bag with products not using any packing material at all. Sounds a bit impossible when we are talking about lotions and potions but the clever people at Lush have made it all possible. Pack some solid shampoo and deodorant and wave goodbye to plastic landfill! If you want to take it even further, consider going all DYI – great for your hair and great for the environment!
(Really) Reef-friendly sunscreen
Another item to be found in toiletry bag is sunscreen – at least if you or the person you’re buying for are heading anywhere sunny, which, let’s face it, is mostly anywhere. So what’s bad about sunscreen? Well, for starters most sunscreen contains a lot of chemicals such as oxybenzone, parabens and other nasty things, which you might question if you really want to slather your skin with on a daily basis. But the real reason here actually has to do with where all those chemicals go when they leave your skin, having done their bit to protect you from harmful rays. Whether you rinse them off in the shower or gradually as you swim around in some azure sea, all of these chemicals have a profoundly negative effect on marine life and especially on corals. To add to the problem, many brands advertise as ‘coral-safe’ but still contain the above ingredients. Read the labels! Stream2Sea make a good range of biodegradable and reef-friendly products, so you can be a happy fish.
Go full on Diva
This one is for ladies only, but it’s a good one. Any girl worth her travelling salt has surely spent some time agonising how to fit 6 months supply of tampons into her bag and still have room for that second bikini. Apart from taking up valuable luggage space, it goes without saying that tampons, applicators and their packing create mountains of waste every year. Enter the Diva Cup or the Moon Cup. Essentially what it says on the tin, menstrual cups are made of soft silicone and are reusable for years with the right care. Granted, they do take some practice to get used to, but you’ll thank us the next time you are in the back of beyond somewhere in South East Asia and there isn’t a tampon within 500 miles. Not to mention all that money you’ll save too. A win for your wallet, and a win for the environment!
Nature-friendly soap
Staying with hygiene and the idea of travelling rough, you will most likely be faced with the task of hand washing most if not all of your clothes for any duration of time, especially if you are heading out on some of the more rural internship placements. While a sink and a plug will do great for the most part, pay some thought to the detergent you use. Most household brands contain lots of chemicals better left out of nature, especially in countries with questionable sewage systems. Throw in some eco-friendly soap or detergent and you’re good to go. And for those really out of the way trips where you might not even have access to a sink, there’s always the Scrubba to act as your personal little washing machine, all powered by you!
Ditch the fleece – buy bamboo!
There are of course also eco-conscious choices to be made when it comes to those clothes you will eventually end up scrubbing free of roadside dirt. While the fleece has been a steady travel stalwart for decades, the travelling eco-warrior should steer clear. This is because even though some fleece material is technically made from recycled plastics, those same plastics get released from your garment, every time you wash it and end up polluting streams, rivers and seas. Luckily, fleece isn’t the only lightweight and soft material out there. Clothes made out of bamboo tick both these boxes, with the added bonus of being entirely organic and made from a material that grows incredibly fast, making it very sustainable. For great lines of lovely, soft eco-conscious bamboo outfits, check out BAM and Braintree. Using bamboo instead of heavily pesticide-dependent cotton is however a growing trend, so keep an eye out for new brands!
Solar-panel selfie power
Of course, clothes and hygiene aren’t the only areas where you can go on an eco-crusade. Unless you (or the person you are gifting) are some kind of digital recluse, chances are you will be bringing at least one digital item and that will need power. Quite aside from the difficulty of finding cheap digs with more than one power outlet, if you are heading out on a more rustic trip you may want a more reliable way of charging up that phone so you can upload that selfie. Consider bringing a solar panel, which these days come in all sorts of shapes and price classes. We like GoalZero, but there are many choices, just take your pick and get charged up whenever the sun’s up!
Bags for life
Many of these gift ideas revolve around avoiding the use of plastic. Perhaps no plastic item is more prevalent than the plastic bag. It is estimated that the global population use around 500 billion plastic bags every year. Most of those are single use, but unfortunately, that doesn’t stop them from being around for a long, long time. A very large part of them ends up in the ocean, where they cause painful deaths to all manner of marine life. Fortunately for you and your Christmas shopping, a reusable bag can be bought for a very small penny and last for a very long time. You can pick them up in almost any shape, colour and material so let your imagination run wild! If you want to pick up extra eco-warrior points, get a back made from recycled plastic bottles, like the ChicoBag.
So there you have it. Being an eco-conscious traveller is a piece of cake with all these great gadgets to help reduce your climate impact. And in the long run, your wallet will thank you, but not nearly as much as future generations and the environment through which we all travel.
Know of any more green travel gadgets we missed? Let us know in the comments!
The repercussions of the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU are still ongoing and the full extent of leaving won’t become clear for many years. One of first sectors that will be affected by Brexit will be the travel industry. In this article we look at how traveling to the UK has changed both for visitors to the country and British nationals going to Europe.
One of the biggest impacts of the referendum vote could be the end of borderless travel. At the moment British and European citizens can move freely across borders without having to pass through passport control. If the Schengen agreement is also removed then the future could see a lot more queuing at immigration and border checks becoming the norm.
The border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is set to be one of the most contentious parts of Brexit. The Irish border is the only land border Europe has with the United Kingdom. Many professionals fear that creating a border could stir up old tensions between the UK and Ireland. However EU Law experts have stated that the Common Travel Agreement could remain but would have to be altered in the negotiations.
The cost of traveling is also likely to rise dramatically. Airfares between the UK and Europe could rise once Britain leaves the single market. British tourists might find themselves paying higher insurance as their European Health Insurance Card becomes void. Since the referendum the value of the British pound has dropped which has been good for visitors going into the UK.
Editor in chief at ThePointsGuy.com Zach Honig told the New York Times that “for lots of people London is traditionally an expensive tourist destination … [it is] now within reach for a lot of US based travelers”. Unfortunately for the Brits the price of traveling out of the country has risen making their holidays more expensive.
The ramifications of Brexit on the UK’s tourism industry are already being felt. The number of tourists to the UK has dropped during the first nine months of 2016. It had been predicted that there would be a tourist boom post-Brexit due to the falling pound. Yet despite a spike in online searches for British destinations this has yet to covert to an increase in the number of visitors.
The long-term effects of international travel due to Brexit will not be clear for the next few years and perhaps even longer. As the referendum to leave the EU was not legally binding this has caused a huge rift in how Britain will leave, commonly known as a hard or soft Brexit. The British government has so far made conflicting statements on which direction the UK will take. If it is a hard Brexit then expect to see much tougher border controls.
Despite all the negativity around Brexit, the UK is still a great place to visit and is full of rich culture. Nothing will change until the UK starts negotiating and with the value of sterling down it is the perfect time to pay a visit.
And if you’re looking for 
There are a number of organizations out there that you can join in order to meet people, find jobs, and gain advice. These organizations are: TESOL, 
Once you know where you wish to go, it’s time to apply for a job! Apply for any jobs that gain your interest. It’s advisable to apply to a few at a time so that you can have the best chance of getting a job. This is an exciting time, but make sure that you have all of your application requirements complete. You’re going to need proof of your certification, a resume, and maybe a cover letter. Spend some time making sure your application packet is current and 
same grey clothes, with the same expressionless face. But I do not need to delve into that literature. Visions of such homogenous populations are winning political ground all across the world as fear is dictating decisions. On the grounds of hypothesized white supremacy, national security or plain intolerance, nations are closing their borders in the hope of reliving that abstract, fleeting moment in pre-Tower-of-Babel- human history, [or even pre- Twin Towers-9/11-bliss] when everyone spoke the same language and came from the same cultural background.
On the 23rd of June 2016, a 52% majority of voters chose for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union (BBC news, 2016). This decision is set to massively impact the public domain, from health and safety to workers rights, however a subject often overlooked during the leave campaign was how this decision will affect animal welfare. At present an estimated 80% of UK animal welfare legislations originate from the EU (RSPCA, 2016a), and although specific legislation set at national level such as the Animal Welfare Act (2006) and the Hunting Act (2004) will remain unchanged, many of the welfare friendly laws and regulations we have in place, including the way in which farm animals are reared, produced, transported and slaughtered are not a part of this (Bowles, 2016). Furthermore, these EU legislations include the protection of wildlife and birds, the inspection of animals kept in zoos, and consumer information with regards to labelling of food products. Nine EU laws regulate the use of animals in research, covering the breeding and use of animals for science, the prohibition of the marketing and the import of cosmetics products testing (RSPCA, 2016b). These laws commit the EU and Member States to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting other legislation and customs, particularly in relation to religious and cultural traditions (Gittins, 2016). So the question is, with the UK now set to Brexit will these laws be changed, and if so how will this impact animal welfare?
The vote to leave the EU has caused upset among many in Britain, and there is no doubt that once Brexit comes into effect, that there will be changes, so what will this mean with regards the animal welfare?
The historic referendum which saw Britain leave the EU sent shockwaves around the continent. For most people, the main concern post Brexit relates to money. How will mortgage payments be affected? What will happen the cost of holidays abroad? These are some typical questions people are seeking answers to.
To fully comprehend the effect of Brexit on animal welfare protection, it must be understood that animals in European Union (EU) countries and worldwide are protected to a different set of standards according to the laws of the various countries but also, perhaps, due to the diversity of cultural attitudes. Traditional practices, availability of resources and standards of education all result in different prioritisation of animal welfare protection – in law and more pertinently, in practice. In the current political climate, with uncertainty around important issues as we extricate ourselves from the EU, there is concern that when Britain is no longer under EU regulation, its laws will offer less protection to its animals.
The 23rd June 2016 saw a historic moment when the British people voted to controversially leave the European Union and venture out into the unknown. Once Article 50 is triggered the government will need to decide which, if any, EU laws they will keep over a range of areas, including animal welfare. Currently, there are forty-four EU laws protecting animal welfare, thirteen of these are already implemented into British legislation so Brexit will have no effect on these. However, the remaining thirty-one laws have been applicable in the UK without specific legislation and once Britain leaves the EU these will no longer be valid, it will therefore, be down to the post-Brexit government as whether to scrap or incorporate these into British law (Wedderburn, 2016). Depending on the government on the day this could either be detrimental to animal welfare in the UK or could be an opportunity for further improvement to the present legislation that protects our animals.
As yet the Government’s Brexit negotiation objectives are unknown, meaning this subject is based around assumptions and public consensus. A recently conducted RSPCA survey1 showed that 81% of the public believe that welfare standards should be maintained if not improved, a motion further supported by the BVA in an open letter to the Government2. What we do know however, are the laws not effected by our decision to leave the EU. The laws imposed by the EU fall into 3 categories: Regulations, Decisions and Directives. Regulations and Decisions are automatically binding, but won’t stand once we leave; whereas Directives are imposed upon a member state to write into their own national law, meaning they will still stand post Brexit along with all other UK laws. This leaves areas of law vulnerable to large scale change, but if we assume public pressure drives Government direction then welfare standards won’t deteriorate, but what form will this take? Will abattoirs become more tightly regulated and monitored? What about non-stun slaughter? Disease surveillance and information sharing is an important preventative measure, will our access change? How are farmers going to cope without EU subsidies? Will the Government replace them? How will this affect the cost of food production?
